tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 18, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, this is classified as a controlled substance, special controls are required for dispensing by pharmacists. the f.d.a.'s preliminary laboratory tests revealed that the counterfeit version of this drug contained the wrong active ingredients. the counterfeit product contained none of the four active ingredients found in the genuine medication. in fact it found two different drugs used to treat acute pain. rogue websites and corrupt distributors now prey on the fear of americans when medicines are in short supplies. drug shortages have increased in recent years and adversely affect patient care. . and a side effect of drug shortages is counterfeit drug trafficking. last february the f.d.a. warned health care professionals and
patients about a counterfeit version of a cancer treatment. test revealed the count fit version did not contain the medicine's active ingredient. several medical practices in the united states may have purchased the counterfeit drug from a foreign supplier. the f.d.a. requested that the medical practices stop the use of any remaining products from this supplier. unfortunately in this case alone there were dozens of cancer patients who may never know that they did not receive life-saving cancer drugs. instead they got a useful counterfeit drug, a drug counterfeited and sold only for the purpose of financial gain. these recent situations prove that those who traffic in counterfeit drugs should be subject to enhanced penalties. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, again its bicameral legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. chu: mr. speaker, h.r. 3668,
the counterfeit drug penalty enhancement act of 2012, would increase the maximum criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit drugs. counterfeit drugs are a serious public threat to all americans for several reasons to. begin with, a person who unknowingly consumes a cousht fit medication may be harmed by dangerous but undisclosed substances in the drug. as a food and drug administration representative testified at a hearing before the judiciary committee's crime subcommittee, a counterfeit drug could be used making ingredients that are toxic to patients and processed unpoorly controlled and unsanitary conditions. also, an individual who consumes a counterfeit drug is deprived of meaningful treatment that can respond to life-threatening illnesses. consider, for example, a patient suffering from a heart ailment or a child who is desperately fighting an aggressive rife-thretening infection. the consequences of either
consumer an ineffective counterfeit drug are blatantly obvious. by receiving these counterfeit drugs instead of the real medications that they require, each of these individuals will be denied receiving the effective treatment that they must quickly be given in order to address their illnesses. finally the proliferation of counterfeit drugs poses a grave nationwide risk to the public health and safety of all our citizens. current technology in distribution channels present the real dange that are a very large quantity of these counterfeit drugs could enter into the marketplace where they can injure and possibly risk the lives of many americans before they are even detected. the food and drug administration is working with medical product supply chain stake holders to respond to this emerging threat. but we need to do more. it is critically important for us to reinforce our criminal law so that it clearly addresses the national menace presented by
large scale intentional trafficking in counterfeit drugs. under current law, trafficking and counterfeit drugs receives the same criminal penalty as trafficking in other less dangerous items. this shortcoming in current law explains while the u.s. intellectual coordinator supports this as stated in her annual recent report to congress. this bill not only appropriately recognizes the need to treat crimes involving counterfeit medications more seriously, but also requires the justice department to prioritize its investigatetory and prosecutorial efforts with respect to these crimes. i'm particularly pleased that during a judiciaryary committee's markup of the bill, an amendment offered by my colleague, congressman bobby scott, was adopted that would direct the attorney general to give increased priorities to efforts to investigate and prosecute these offenses. as amended, this measure appropriately recognizes that while penalty increases may be
warranted, effective deterrence depends mostly on the likelihood of apprehension and conviction of offenders. i commend the efforts of my colleagues, congressman patrick meehan, and congresswoman lindsa sanchez, for introducing this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3668 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jort. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, who is the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in -- mr.
speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3668, the counterfeit drug penalty enhancement act. i want to thank the distinguished gentleman from texas for his leadership on this issue, on the judiciary committee, and i also want to thank my colleagues from the other side of the aisle as we rise in a truly bipartisan, bicameral fashion, in working for the passage of this very important legislation so i appreciate the kind remarks from the gentlelady from california in support of this bill as well. like so many other health care costs, prescription drugs are expensive and the cost is rising. so what we are beginning to see increasingly is people going online to make the purchases for those drugs. it's an issue that i saw firsthand as a federal prosecutor who began to work on the proliferation of illegal drug sales over the internet. often times the people who approach -- who are purchasing these are senior citizens. online there's not the kinds of protections that would exist traditionally as there are in a
pharmacy setting where not only do you have the ability to have the advice of a pharmacist but the certainty of the chain of custody so to speak for the drugs that have been traveling in commerce. what we're finding is, of the illegal drugs, close to 90% of those that are sold illegally are in fact counterfeit, are sold online. we're not just talking about mislabeled pills here. the fakes could actually contain no active ingredients, the wrong active ingredient or even a contaminant. the counterfeit medicines pose a threat because the conditions under which they are manufactured often in unregular lated locations and frequently under unsanitary conditions. in many instances they contain none of the active pharmaceutical ingredients found in the authentic medicine. or are incorrect dosages. others macon dane toxic ingredients such as heavy metals, arsenic, pesticides, rat
poison, brick dust, floor wax and even leaded highway paint. in the worst case scenario, the medicine itself is a fake and the result of the counterfeit sale is harm to the patient's health and safety. and while all times of drugs are counterfeited, what's of particular concern to me is the elicit market in significant drugs, cancer drugs, a.d.h. drugs and pain treatments. this is an economic harm. estimates are that there's $75 billion worth of counterfeit drug sales annually, but it's not just the economic harm that is of the greatest concern to me, it is the consumer safety societied with this. the world health organization in their estimates predicted or believe that counterfeit drugs
caused $1 -- 100,000 deaths worldwide last year. this is an issue of such importance it even captured the attention of the world governments with the g-8 leaders at camp david issuing a declaration on the need to address this international crisis. today it's illegal to introduce illegal drugs, counterfeit drugs noorks interstate commerce. but the penalties are no different than those assessed for trafficking other counterfeit products such as movies or fashion products like purses. that's why our bill seeks to have sentencing laws reflect the seriousness of the crime. the bill increases fines to a maximum of $4 million for the first offense and $8 million for subsequent offenses and prison terms for a maximum of 10 to 20 years. this is an overdue and needed change and i can say that as a prosecutor. i'd like to thank congressman
sanchez for her leadership on this issue, i want to thank my colleague from pennsylvania, the congressman tom marino, for his hard work on the judiciary committee, working with chairman smith on this issue and i want to thank the members in both parties, should be recognized for bringing this critical measure to the floor so expeditiously. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to lend their support for this very important legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3668 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
>> some news today. roger clemens has been acquitted on all charges by a jury that he did not lie to congress when he denied using performance enhancing drugs. the outcome brings to an end a 10-week trial that capped an expensive five-year investigation into one of the greatest pitchers in baseball. that is according to the associated press.
>> we are in an incredibly important era. the future of american based companies and their success, there is only one element in the balance where we need to take account of what is happening internationally. breaking down barriers that still exist. >> tonight, the business software alliance president and ceo on the industry's next step in improving cyber-security and fighting online piracy. "the communicators," on c-span 2 at 8:00 p.m.. >> tomorrow, jamie dimon will testify on the hill about his company's recent trading loss.
it is my honor to be on the stage with the man that i hope is the 45th president of these united states. [cheers and applause] that blanket is pretty exciting. i do not think he could wrap himself in that today. it is great to be back in janesville. for me this is a big city. i grew up in a small town and we used to come over here on friday nights, coming over to shake these. it is always good to be back. i am always honored to be here with the man who will be the next president, the 45th president of these united states. [cheers and applause] we were proud, particularly those who had the experience to
lead. governor romney has experienced at so many levels. experience as a businessman, who helped to start out and reform so many companies. then he went on as an executive to take the one thing that was on the verge of an absolute disaster for the olympics and our country. it would have been a natural -- national disaster. he turned it around and made it a source of tremendous pride. [applause] as the governor that i am affection for, because a governor, the buck stops with you. he had a lot of debt, turned it around, and found a way to cut taxes time and again to get his economy going in his state. would it not be nice to have a president who did that? [applause]
most importantly, the day after yesterday, he is a father. he and his wife have five sons and he dotes after 18 grandchildren. i think it is one of the most important jobs out there. >> one more. >> [laughter] i like it. he has the experience to lead, which is important. now, more than ever in this state and across the country, we need someone to stand up and lead. [applause] we know how important it is when you can make a change that comes to leadership. think about it. less than two years ago, the 44th governor of wisconsin was still in office. our state had lost more than 100,000 jobs. unemployment was over 9%.
the state had a budget deficit of $3.6 billion. we were in trouble. we made a change, elected a new governor, and because of the republican governor and legislature we were transforming things so much so that we now have a budget surplus. [applause] we have a budget surplus for the first time ever, for two consecutive years for the rainy day fund. most importantly, there has been 41,000 jobs. the unemployment rate is at the lowest it has been since 2008. [applause] we were able to show people in wisconsin that we can turn things around. it is time to elect a leader who
can turn things around for america. we need a leader who is going to put jobs first. we need a leader who understands that success and government is not measured by how many people are dependent. just the opposite is true, that success is how few people are dependent on government. not because we are going to push them off, but because there are more jobs in the private sector that put people back to work. we need a leader who believes in more freedom and prosperity, who believes in america and that our best days are yet to come. we need a leader, and that leader is governor mitt romney. let's give him a warm welcome.
[unintelligible] >> thank you. thank you. what a welcome. sit down then. come on, guys. shall we turn the air- conditioning on, too? there is a group outside that is even larger than the group here, and so let's ask them can we hear you outside? we hear you, all right. what a kick off in here in janesville. what an honor to be here. thank you for bringing so many friends. i think president obama has put this in his column. he assumed from the beginning that wisconsin was going to be
is. we're going to win wisconsin and we are going to get the white house. it has a lot to do with his record. it has a lot to do with what has happened over the last 3 1/2 years. these are challenging times in america, and his campaign is having a hard time deciding what to talk about, because they would like to talk about the economy and his record, but they know last time his campaign slogan was "hope and change." this time it is "we hope to change the subject." it is time for america to go back to work. after he was elected and with all the promises heade, he went on "today" and he said if i
cannot turn the economy around in 3 1/2 years, i do not deserve to be elected. he said the private sector is doing fine. 23 million americans out of work who stopped looking for work began to speak up, and people began to shout out, and people who have seen the incomes go down -- do you know that the median income has gone down 10% in the last four years, even though many of the things we buy have gone up and up? he recognized he could not go with that like any more because there is no baby will let him turn a one-year proposition into an eight-year proposition. now, he tries to tell people
that his policies are working, that it is taking longer than we had been told and promised. i can tell you i know he is an eloquent person and is able to describe these policies in great detail and tell you that night is day and day is like a lot of people know better. if you have a question about that, if you wonder whether massive budget policies could make things better, talk to a business person, talked to dan here, or business people in your committee, asked them, as the policies made it easier for you to grow and hire people? i know what they're on to say, because i saw a survey done by the chamber of commerce a year ago. what has "obamacare" done?
3/4 said it has made them less able to hire people. "obamacare" has not helped create jobs. how about dodd-frank? you cannot make a business successful by shrinking your employees year after year. a business person wants to grow his business, but when you grow a business, there are two ways to do it, to finance it. you have to have the money to pay that people and build the facility to grow. which you get that? from profits or from going to the bank and getting a loan. he goes to the banks, and they will not make loans. one of the reasons is because
isdodd-frank and overregulation in washington. if you cannot get a loan, you can invest the profits you get. i hear a laugh over here. these small business, the president wants to take more of their profits and taxes. most small businesses are not taxed as corporations, but as individuals. they pay the individual tax rate, and he wants to take that from 35% to 40%. do you know what that means to and entrepreneurs trying to expand? if they're lucky enough to make a profit, then the government wants 40% of that, making it harder for you to grow. my priority is putting americans back to work. that is job one.
now, the president gave a long speech last week. you may have seen press know you did not see it. anybody here see it? ?ow many have done it wit he lay out his plans, and one of the things he said i agreed with. he said everyone in america deserves a fair shot, and i agree. people ought to know that -- if they are willing to work hard, got an education, have the right kind of values, take personal responsibility, have blessings of family, people should know they have a fair shot of fulfilling their dreams are getting a good job in providing for their families. do you think when the president
spent trillions of dollars more than we take in and passes those debts on to the next generations that those kids about those people of the next generation, are they going to get a fair shot? how about when the president takes your tax money and uses it to invest or guarantee loans for businesses that happened to be owned by his campaign get converters, people like solyndra? does this give you in america a fair shot? how about when the kids in washington, d.c., who have scholarships to go to the schools of their choice, he's entered-city schools are performing well, so kids going to charter schools -- did that give these kids a fair shot? how about the soldiers that are
coming back from conflicts, expecting to come back here and get a job, but instead they are and an unemployment line? does that give them a fair shot? how about the people who work hard, and they are tired of being tired. this president keeps telling them for more years. are they getting a fair shot both if there has ever been a president not able to provide to the people a fair shot it is this president, and that is why we're on to replace him with someone who will go to work at this again. how are you going to do that? first of all, i am going to make that my number one job. i will not push and decide to the congress and say to the answer and policy and harry reid
-- they will not be leaders at that point -- i will not say you take care of the economy while i get to do the things that i want to do like "obamacare" and dodd- frank. what i am going to do is focus my attention of getting americans back to work. andone.ll be job won th -- job one. there are a lot of things you have to do to get the economy strong. number one, i will take advantage of our energy resources, coal, gas, oil. if i have to build it myself, i
will get that pipeline down here from canada to get oil down here. the energy resources we have here -- we are an energy-rich nation. we do not just drill into the earth and tapping into a pocket of oil. we go vertically and horizontally, and we can tap into all sorts of pockets. we now have 100 years of natural gas supply, and low prices. i want to take advantage because if we take advantage of our energy resources, we will have manufacturers like this grow and others come backbecause manufacs energy, and homes use energy. i saw an article in the "washington post" by david ignatius and it said there was a
study that america could be never won energy producing nation in the world within 10 years. i want that energy here because we can get jobs here. i want unemployment? -- employment back up. [applause] there's something else i'm going to do, that is, get rid of this huge overhang, this cloud that is hanging over small business today. if you ask a small-business person of our wide they are uncomfortable right now, they will say, one piece of legislation that gives them heartburn, something they do not know until they have passed it -- remember that line by nancy pelosi? i will give us a big dose of certainty. i will appeal obamacare. [applause] -- repeal obamacare.
[applause] and then there is something else. when people think about taking their life savings and investing in small business, or perhaps, some big corporation wants to build a factory here, one of the things they will think about is whether america will hit a grease-like road -- greece- like half the down the road. i want to make sure that everyone knows we will have a stable foundation fiscally. to do that, i will get america back on track to have a balanced budget. [applause] but this makes a difference in the lives of our citizens that
are without work or underemployed. a lot of people are having hard times these days. i go back to what the president said. did you see that? that is water dropping out of the ceiling. it is so hot that the building is sweating. there are people are run this country having hard times. qassam i described this morning and -- there are some but i spoke with this morning, their spouse has worked for the military for almost 40 years. they are doing well and goes back to the work force and is only able to work in a job requires have both -- heavy lifting, making $8.50 per hour. a huge reduction in compensation for their family. people are having a hard time. those unemployment numbers understate the difficulty people are having in this country. i wish the president could get out and understand how out of
touch he is when he says the private sector is doing fine. is not. it needs help. [applause] and what i'm talking about doing is getting help for the people that need it most rideoutte in this country. but it is also getting help for the next generation, for our kids. they deserve to know that the future is bright. you deserve to know that your kids will enjoy a better future. that has to happen again in america. and that is something else, the whole cause of liberty and freedom. i was in great britain a number of months ago and got the chance to meet tony blair and david cameron and the leaders of great britain. one of them said to me, if you are lucky enough to be elected president of the united states, you will have the chance to meet the -- visit other countries and go to their capitals.
you will undoubtedly have rehearsed for you all of the mistakes that america is making. but as you do that, do not ever forget that the one thing we all fear the most is a week america. america's strength, military strength of economic strength, strength in our homes -- american strength is the best ally peace has ever known. [applause] i was actually in san diego on memorial day speaking about our military strength and saw a number of veterans from various wars, and also saw the members of our armed forces today. as you know, it is a marine and navy base there. i got a chance to introduce some
of the veterans. one of them and i introduced was a lookout on the uss tennessee on the day of the attack of pearl harbor. he said he saw the pilot coming in and heat -- his eyes locked on the eyes of the pilot of one of those aircraft that would come in and dropped bombs in an attack and took so many lives. there are not as many world war ii veterans are around as there used to be, and they cannot stand quite as tall and straight as they used to. the torch that they have been holding for us and for the world, they cannot hold quite as high. it is our turn to seize that torch, the torch of liberty, freedom, of opportunity and hope. buts not america's torch, it is america's duty and honor to hold that torture -- torche
for the world, and to have deliberately so the world can see it. it depends on strength here at home, in our economy, and in turn, our military. we need to get america stronger again with great jobs. i will do that by balancing the budget, getting rid of obamacare, making sure we open up new markets for american goods, getting our military -- our policies to work. i have to make sure there's a level playing field between labor and management. our schools are falling behind. it is inexcusable. i want to train our workers of today and tomorrow. the people of america are struggling today and they depend on us. our kids are hoping we will do it. we will do it. help us to keep america the shining city on a hill.
>> the house will be back in as to 30 p.m. eastern time for roll-call votes and general speeches. and tomorrow, the swearing in of democrat ron harper, who won a special election following gabrielle giffords. live coverage of the house continues here on c-span when members gavel back in tonight at 6:30 p.m. >> we are in an incredibly important era for the future growth of software. and things like sopa and pisa
matters -- and pipa matter. >> tonight, robert heineman on fighting online piracy and cyber security. that is on the communicator's at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and tomorrow, democratic congresswoman sheila the jackson lee of texas discussing the u.s. deportation policy. the house oversight committee prepares a contempt of congress report regarding the fast and furious operation. enda the last hour of "washington journal", lois beckett discusses her latest piece on how campaigns are
targeting specific online adds to potential voters through the use of yahoo! and google. earlier today, the obama administration announced it would stop deporting young very illegal immigrants and grant them yet -- work permits instead. here's a look at the issue. guest: we have been working with a number of groups to ask the administration to use its authority to prevent the deportation of eligible students, and also the parents and spouses of u.s. citizen children, people who contribute
to the country, and pose no threat to our society, and who we should not be putting in deportation proceedings. it has been a long campaign and a swede accomplishment. host: here is the headline from saturday. the headline says that congress would bypass. the administration chose to move forward even without congressional approval. guest: they tried to move a bill through congress, the dream act. it was defeated in 2010 by just a handful of republican votes, and it became increasingly clear to the administration that there was no prospect of bipartisan legislation this year. they needed to continue to go forward, as this was a humanitarian crisis, to protect this group of young people, to protect their dreams. host: tell us how this is
different from what the white house has just done. guest: the dream act will be a permanent solution to the problems these young people face. these are people who came to the u.s. as children. they know it as their home. they may not speak the language of the country they were born in. the dream act will allow them to pursue college or go into the military to eventually adjust their status and become citizens. the president does not have the power to grant citizenship to these young people. his move would give them temporary residence and a work permit for two years. it will move -- removed immediate fear of deportation, which is a huge fear for these young people. host: it means that these select individuals would be immune from deportation, as i mentioned.
it affects 800,000 people. it is those younger than 30 and in the u.s. before age 16. and they have to have been here at least five continuous years. they also have to graduate high school with -- or have a ged and have served in the military with no criminal record. young people who are succeeding in jobs or the military, why is that if focus? guest: this is about finding a group of people for this relief. the criteria the administration settled on a really attractive the criteria in the dream? . it tries to define a group of people who came to the country as children, who were under 31. and who are in school, and the military, on a tract to
contribute to society. we will not deport these young people, it says, and we will give them a chance to participate fully in our society. host: if you would like to join the conversation about the obama administration's new policy on immigration, you can call. the numbers are on the screen. also, if you are an illegal immigrant, and you have experience that, you can call. we are talking with the executive director at the center for community at change. -- of change. the time looking at a conversation what -- a while ago at the white house, a contentious meeting where you sat down with the president at the white house. you were part of this.
you got out of the meeting with a sharp critique of the president's leadership. guest: yes. host: how he did was that meeting, and do you think it accomplish anything? guest: i would say it -- it was a chilly meeting, more than a hot meeting, and it was certainly tense. it certainly accomplished a great deal and the president became aware in that meeting, perhaps for the first time, the extent to which the people who work for him and in the department of homeland security were pursuing priorities vastly at odds with what he had set as prayer ways. the focus had been that we are reporting criminals and people that are a threat. we argued in that meeting that the department of homeland security was going after separating parents, mothers and fathers from their kids.
we asked the administration to lean in and push forward and use its authority. it has been essentially two years since that meeting, but has also played a key role in getting this on the radar screen. host: our first call is from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i was going to say that i think they make it entirely too large for the people to be deported. we have a policy when we go into other countries to give them freedom, to rehabilitate. i think there should be some kind of program. now for all of them, but -- not for all of them, but they should go through a rehabilitation process and then deported. host: rehabilitated for what? caller: some of them are criminals. we could rehabilitate some of
them. there is a horrible problem with the infrastructure in america. these people could have a chance of doing something like that, and also getting an education. host: let's get a response. guest: i agree that our country needs a more generous approach to immigration. the unique genius of our country throughout our history is that more than any other country in the history of the art we have welcomed immigrants to our shores. -- in the history of the earth we have welcomed immigrants to our shores. that has been a key to our success. that has broken down in the last couple of decades. there has been for an immigrant to get into to be a citizen. people live in the shadows and cannot pay taxes because they are not legal. legalization would be good for those immigrants and make their lives better, but also would be good for our country. host: our next call is from an illegal immigrant living in new
jersey. good morning. caller: i am not illegal. i'm talking about my son. host: share your story. caller: he has qualified [unintelligible] host: go ahead and turn down your television. now tell us about your son. you said your son qualifies? caller: yes, my son came here when he was 4 years old. i would like to know when this will be available for him to apply for? host: how does this work? guest: that is an excellent question. that has not yet when -- not yet been worked out, the logistics of this program. the notion is that within 60 days, the part of homeland
security the processes naturalization applications for every weddie -- everybody would have a form of an ready, two months from the announcement. young people would submit some kind of form, pay a fee, and how their obligation looked at. it is about two months from now. host: there was a profile of a virginia teacher who graduated from high school in richmond. she is from guatemala. she came to the country when she was very young. the "washington post" reported she would be deported right after graduation. she was having a very different experience than her peers. but she got a reprieve. she got a one-year different from the department of homeland security just last week. -- one-year before all from the department comment security just last week.
she just found out that she would be deported. how do individual cases like this get played out now? she got a one-year reprieve. prior to what the obama administration did on friday, how common was that? guest: for years, individuals to get to deportation, they were given what is called classified action. we can usually stop an individual from being deported -- sometimes. but there are thousands and thousands that we never read about in the paper who do get deported, whose lives are shattered. this whole class of people, this policy would make it so they are not deported. and it will actually be able to work legally -- they will actually be able to work legally. host: how difficult has it been for young people to come out and
admit that they are here illegally, whether they are college students, high school students, serving in the military? guest: this incredible change in policy, in my view, goes 100% to courageous people who for the past decade now, they have staged mock graduation ceremonies. they have come out publicly to say they are undocumented. they have challenged politicians through civil disobedience. this has been an extraordinary campaign led by young people for young people. without those actions, this policy would not have changed. host: we are taking calls. an independent in herington, delaware, good morning. are you with us? go ahead.
caller: i want to ask a quick question. host: yes? let's move on. we do not need to hear language like that. good morning. caller: what happens is it to turn into six or eight and another thing, list of them who come to this country do not want to assimilate. it want to keep the traditions of the old country. take a country like france -- have so many muslims have migrated into france and that they have totally changed that country. in is no longer the french
citizen that determines the traditions of that country anymore. they want sharia law, and they have changed that country to a muslim nation almost and that is exactly what can happen to this country. -- i have to disagree strongly with the caller. i think the record shows the vast majority of immigrants do want to become integrated into our society and in the wake of this story about the president's historic decision, there are moving accounts about young people who want to be engineers and contribute to society. it has been the history of this country that we had waves of immigration and waves of fear the country was
somehow worse off for it. we have always been that much much better for it and it has given us the energy and the talent and there's a fundamental disagreement on that point. on the question of people bringing family members, there is a complicated process for people to sponsor relatives and there is a waiting list for people who are citizens who want to sponsor family members. it's a piece of the broken system. one of the things best about the policy in the past is that we have stressed what is called family unity -- the idea that they have a priority and a code -- a close family member should be able to stay with them. it is not being terribly well implemented, but people can bring over close with relatives if they can sponsor them and meet the financial test. >> let's hear from a democrat in
st. louis, missouri. >> what is your comment or question? >> president obama has taken a lot of flak from people who are not republicans. you have to remember that george bush, young and george was in there eight years and they wasted money hand over foot. he was a very lucky the economy was on the upswing when he was in there. but the bad part was obama inherited the downswing. >> what has been the political response?
>> there has been extraordinary enthusiasm in the community. immigrant communities, latino communities, all across the country, there has been tears and celebrations. it's an extraordinary moment in history. we do not have extensive polling out but it is a notice of -- it is notable that governor romney yesterday on the sunday shows refused to take a position whether he would extend this policy if he was elected president. one important thing to note here is that a new president can take action because it is not a permanent policy. the question was asked which extended or not and he refused to answer which i think will be a major liability as his campaign unfolds. host: here is a headline from
the "washington post" -- let's listen to mitt romney on "face the nation" yesterday. >> it would be overtaken by events by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation which creates the law which relates to these individuals so they know with the setting is going to be. >> i won't keep on about this, but just make sure i understand, would you leave this in place while you work out a long-term solution or which you just repeal it? >> we will look at that setting as we reach that but my anticipation is i would come into office and say we need to get this done on a long-term basis and not a stopgap measure. he should have worked on this years ago if he felt seriously about this. he should have taken action when he had a democrat house and sent it. he say these things and so forth have months before the election.
>> why do you think he did it? >> i think the timing is clear. he wanted to really have a solution that dealt with these kids and immigration, is something he would have taken up in his first three and a half years, not his last three months. >> so it is politics? >> that's certainly a big part of the equation. host: that was mitt romney in his first sunday talk show interview other than with fox. what is your reaction? >> i think governor romney has been set himself up for a world of trouble. he said he would veto it during his campaign and cited arizona's sb1070 as a model and now he's not willing to say he would extend a policy that enjoys broad support among americans and he will be speaking to the
national association of latino officials and i think you'll have a very tough stance to do. host: hears of the reaction from senator chuck grassley. he said -- important to understand that over 100 legal scholars wrote to the president of the united states and said there is a clear and established a mechanism for you to grant relief to these young people and there are precedents of the use of this authority by republicans and democratic presidents for other groups of people, from particular countries experiencing great distress and domestic violence victims. there is almost no legitimate debate about the use of the authority or the possibility of using authority. there may be disagreements about whether the president should have done it. host: the executive director
for the national nonprofit with the mission of developing the power of low-income people and changing the policies and institutions affecting their lives. sterling virginia, independent color. caller: i want you to comment on mitt romney's interview -- he said the president never did anything and he's just not doing something three months before the election. that is utterly false. the president tried in december 2010 and the republicans rejected it and defeated it. the president did a lot of work securing the border, deporting illegals at the time, but mitt romney pretended this ever happened. especially with the defeat of the dream act, he wants a permanent solution. the dream act that the republicans defeated in the senate is the permanent solution and mr. romney said he would veto it.
that is blatantly dishonest and a shame on cbs that it could have called him out and i wish you would talk more about that. he did not answer the question. he was simply being dishonest. host: the caller is exactly right. the president did push for a vote on the dream act in december of 2010. it failed. it did not get 60 votes in the senate. all but five democrats voted for it. exactly three republicans voted for it. the president did do it. the interesting thing is immigration was once a bipartisan issue. i remember standing with senator orrin hatch from utah who was the original sponsor of the greenback at a press conference to announce it many years ago and he is not a vociferous opponent of the dream act and of
immigration reform. there has been a seismic change in the tone and tenor of the debate inside the republican party on these issues, which has made it impossible to move forward with any legislation is in it -- legislation and a progressive direction. the caller also points out that republicans have been calling the president sought on enforcement. unfortunately, we have had record levels of deportation under the obama administration of the last few years. well over a million people have been deported. there are lower levels of border crossings that at any time in modern history. the republicans said in order to do immigration reform, they need to see real enforcement. we have seen real enforcement. we have seen incredible levels of immigration enforcement, but they have still opposed immigration reform. host: here are the numbers of immigration customs enforcement.
400,000 are expected to be deported this year. let's hear from a republican in pennsylvania. caller: let me start by saying charity begins at home. our kids are coming out of high school and colleges and can't find jobs which means they would compete -- which means they would be competing with a dream that kids. it's not fair for people have been waiting for years to come to this country. they say would not be fair to send these kids back to mexico because many of them can't speak spanish. how much english did their parents know when they came to this country. spanish is an easy language to learn. not only that, maybe like governor rick perry and others, giving tax breaks to illegal aliens to begin with and
getting off this free education, perhaps they should go back to mexico and help them rebuild their country. as far as those people calling in -- bush is gone, it's time to stop beating a dead horse. host: do you speak spanish? caller: know, i do not. host: do you want to get through those issues customer >> -- do you want to get through these issues? guest: these are our kids. the president put it eloquently. they play with our kids at school, they go to the same class as, there on the same sports teams. these are our kids. there are american in every single way except for their papers. we have a constitutional decision by the supreme court which says it is mandatory to educate undocumented children. we cannot distinguish based on
someone's legal status in providing a public education. so we are educating these kids. does it make any sense to educate them, to have them play with our kids, go to our schools and then say we're going to make the subject to deportation, wasting all of the education we have given you and not getting a chance to fill your potential. i get crazy for the country and a moral abdication of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. host: our caller expressed concern that they would be competing with american-born citizens for jobs. guest: i think there is a real question of what do we view the economy as a zero sum game. there is a long history of immigrants in this country as entrepreneurs who contribute to creating jobs in our country.
if you go to silicon valley, they run with immigrant labor, emigrant ingenuity, entrepreneurship, cities like detroit, immigrants are helping to bring back vitality to those communities. by legalizing undocumented immigrants, we will generate billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue as people are able to pay legally into the system, that will help with our fiscal crisis and restore the fiscal health of our country. i think immigration reform is a winner for this country economically both in terms of job creation and its effect on our fiscal condition. host: from the "washington post" today -- it talks about a poultry
processing plant, most of the employees at where mexican, some of which really silly. -- many of which were here illegally. it talks about how the economy there has suffered. what do you make of that? guest: alabama as a tragedy unfolding before our eyes. the only state where these harsh immigrant laws have knocked -- immigrant lost have not been knocked down. it has done profound damage to the economy of the state of alabama, the agriculture sector, this construction sector, it's costing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue, employment, etc. discuss to the heart of the immigration question in this country. we need immigrant labor and all
of us are able to eat fresh produce on our plate every day for dinner or lunch. that is largely picked by immigrant labor, most of the undocumented. if we want to have a thriving economy, we need to welcome these immigrants, stop the hypocrisy, give them a path to legal status so they can contribute to making this country all but it can be. host: charleston, south carolina, the democrats' line. caller: i want you to let me have a couple of minutes because i love that c-span but my criticism would be i wish it stop reading the paper and take the calls so we don't have to lose our minutes. i will murder your last name, so i won't even try. i've lived here little -- i moved here a little over three years ago from danbury, conn. i'm a big supporter of the president and pray every day he gets reelected.
i have nothing against this idea about the immigrants, but i would like to make a couple of quick points. like the previous woman before me, this is how i feel -- i want to make two quick points before i say how i feel. this is just my opinion and i heard your debate on the other side of that call. i have a grandson just graduated from uconn and he is looking for a job. an american citizen born or naturalized here, all things being equal in qualifying for a job, i think the american person, child or young adult or whoever should at least come
first if there is no different in their qualifications. that's just my opinion. other thing -- it wasn't answered -- what happens after two years, if they stay here for two yea, they might as well beat allowed to apply for a green card. it wouldn't be just the children because obviously you are not going to keep the children here and deport the parents. host: let's get a response to some of the things she has outlined. guest: she asks a lot of good questions. on the jobs question, i don't think this policy will have a material legged -- material negative impact on the prospects for any other young person. will improve our economy for the reasons i said. it's also true we needed jobs strategy for the country to generate the kinds of opportunities for all young
people that we need and that is a matter this congress has blocked every cereals proposal whether it's infrastructure spending or teachers or firefighters. -- every serious proposal. i agree strongly with the caller that we have a crisis with young people coming out of college with very little in a way of prospects for the future. host: what about prioritizing? we talked about jobs being taken, but shouldn't there be some sort of prioritizing more systematic way to a lot spaces, either employment for schools? guest: i think that's not the american condition. we don't discriminate by place of birth or national origin and we don't want to set into motion a system that allows for discrimination. our tradition has been to be
completely welcoming of people from around the world and put everybody on the same footing as they work to get ahead in their lives. i do not support any kind of preferences of that kind. i think the last issue the caller raised was this question of the parents of undocumented immigrants. it is the case now that we do deport the parents. u.s. citizen kids who were born here, there have been 50,000 kids placed into foster care in this country because we have deported their parents, which is hugely expensive and a crazy policy. we need a policy that says we're not going to deport people have deep ties to this country, who have young kids in the country, and that maybe the next stage of this effort after the election, but we do in fact regularly
deport parents, not just of undocumented kids but u.s. citizens. >> somebody from twitters is how some of the highly needed students are threatened by emigration to leave, otherwise they are arrested, deported, getting the idea that they take their highly qualified skills overseas. bill says that dream act -- what is not understood about the word illegal? if that to be fixed, it's the job of congress, not president obama. should congress act and should the white house leave it to congress to make these kinds of decisions? guest: we definitely need congressional action and i hope we will see action not just on the dream act but comprehensive immigration reform package that would put 11 million
undocumented people in this country, if they pass certain tests on a pass to citizenship. i am hopeful that can happen. the reality is there has been no prospect for immigration reform legislation for some time. are we going to devote our enforcement budget and resources to chase down valedictorians and high-school or are we going to devote those same scarce dollars to going after people who pose a serious threat to the country? what the president was saying on friday which i thought was absolutely right is those young people are an asset to the future of this country and we should be deploying those scarce enforcement dollars to people who pose a threat for the country, not those who would make it better. >> we have tried as hard as we
can to pass the dream act and comprehensive reform and congress has refused. this gives common security and law-enforcement the chance to enforce the law with some discretion and allows these young people who want to serve in our military and work in our businesses the ability to apply for work authorization. we still need a permanent fix. if the president were to sign it today or tomorrow, that's the only way we are going to fix it. from our's hear republican caller from massachusetts. caller: quick question for you. i went through this myself. i'm not an immigrant or anything like that, but there is a bigger problem than you guys are even talking about. i'll lived in a house for about two weeks with some emigrants. basically they told me is they
get a six-month visa, they come over here and work all they can and take their money and send it back to their country. the place i was in, there's three apartments. one apartment at nine people living in it. the second apartment had eight people. the first floor apartment at 5 and they were all related. that was one house. just so you know, i became friends with two of the guys and you know what happened to me? i had a beautiful job and they went down to my job behind my back and i was making $11 an hour, getting plenty of overtime and doing great. they went down and got $7 an hour and i got laid off. my thing is this -- yes, deport them. deport everybody and let's go
through the system. just go through the system. you want to come to the country, go through the system. but everybody know you are going to do. everybody should have a fair shake. they should not come in with a lousy six month visa, send all their money back and when they are ready to go, they tell me how they get back as they go through canada. nobody did nothing about none of them. thank you very much. what i'm very sorry for happened to the caller and the fact he lost his job. i would say unfortunately there is no system that is functional or working in this country for people to come in. we give out so few visas a year, for example, for agricultural workers, we need hundreds of thousands every year to pick the vegetables and fruit we eat every day. what happens is these employers
recruit abroad and with a wink and a not brought people to this country for extended time as undocumented workers. i agree we should have an aboveboard, open, transparent immigration system. but the past to do that has to involve taking the people who are here currently who are working hard, making huge contributions to the country and giving them a chance to get right with the law and become americans. i think we do need an assessment of what our -- what are our labour market needs, but it's have these is that speak to that. >> my guest lead the center's work on immigration reform resulting in the creation of the fair immigration reform movement. he is the executive director and
served on various boards, including the discount foundation and the national advisor board for the open society institute. wichita, kan., the democrats' line. caller: i have a two-part question. i disagree with that man from massachusetts. i know this man is a former himself and maybe he has some personal feelings and i can understand that. but the men from massachusetts makes a lot of sense. i'm a vietnam veteran myself and this republican thing is killing all our bills -- i know a lot of people who are foreigners who are here and they get all sorts of money and grants. they own all the business around here and we can't even get loans for homes.
we do have a system in place for people and it do need to be limited to such a point, so i hope this man understands what is actually going on. are a lot of people who are tired of it. thank you very much. host: thank you for your call. on the question of benefits, no there is a widespread view that immigrants get tons of benefits from the federal government but it's actually not the case. undocumented immigrants are eligible for no federal benefits of any kind. in fact, they pay social security dollars into the system and they are ineligible for social security benefits on the back end. let me say this. there's a tremendous amount of pain in this country but the people because that pain are not the immigrants who are picking strawberries in the field are cleaning hotel rooms.
the people who caused that pain are the moguls on wall street who brought our economy to its knees. i think this anger i am detecting in this call and other callers are misdirected. these are working people who want to make this country a better place for all of us, for their kids and all our kids and their part of the solution, not part of the problem. >> many illegals are on welfare. they're tapping out the system. >> that is a vast perception out there that immigrants are eligible for all kinds of public benefits, but is absolutely not the case. host: from biloxi, mississippi, an independent color. caller: my question is directed toward c-span. you have guests on all the time such as this man that we know nothing of his background and you name different boards or organizations he belongs to and
these names have no meaning to us. but a person such as this is someone that i personally consider is trying to undermine everything the united states has ever stood for. >> you can view the last few minutes of this discussion on line as we head back to the house gaveling back and four roll-call votes. s. 684, by the yeas and nays, s. 404, by the yeas and nays, the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 684, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 684, an act to provide for the conveyance
of certain parcels of land to the town of alta, utah. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 383 shes the nays are 3. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 404 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 404, an act to modify a land act issued by the secretary of the interior. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house success pepped the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk a privilege -- privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 688, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2578, to amend the wild and scenic rivers act related to a segment of the lower merced fliver california and for other purpose -- river in california and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the house will be in order. the louse -- the house will be in order.
>> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: will members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from minnesota deserves to be heard. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. under rule 22, clause 7-c, i hereby announce mir intention to offer a motion to instruct on h.r. 4348, think transportation conference report. i move that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes on the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 4348 be instructed to resolve all issues and file a conference report not later than june 22, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's notice will appear in the record. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i move to suspend the rules and pass h r. 72 4 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill as amended. the clerk: h.r. 1274, a bill to provide for the youth of the minnesota chippewa tribe and for other purposes. mr. young: i ask that all members have unanimous con sent to revise and extend and
include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: in i yield myself such time as i may consume. in 1999, the united states government awarded a settlement to the minnesota chippewa tribe pursuant to the nelson act and various treaties. these funds have been held in trust and not disbursed. h.r. 1272 authorizes the secretary of the interior to disburse the amounts to the chippewa tribe. i would like to thank congressman chip cravaack and the sponsor of the bill, representative collin peterson, for working with the tribe in getting this bill to the floor. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance
of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: i yield to the author of the legislation, mr. peterson, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman. i rise today in support of h.r. 1272, the minnesota chip tribe judgment fund distribution act. 15 years ago, the united states court of federal claims awarded $28 million to the chippewa tribe to compensate the chippewa indians of minnesota for the improper valuation of timber and the taking of land under the nelson act of 1889. now, because of the indian judgment fund act of 1983, congress must pass legislation detailing how the settlement should be distributed among the
six bands that make up the minnesota chippewa tribe. the minnesota chippewa tribe judgment fund act 1272 authorizes the secretary of the interior to release the funds, plus interest, that's been earned, that were appropriated into the trust fund for the minnesota tribe in 1999. expenses for prosecuting the minnesota chippewa tribe claims were shared equally by all the bands. these expenses should be expended equally if the fund. h.r. 1272 requires that each of the six bands provide the secretary with updated membership goals, directs the secretary to set aside further dollars to each member enrolledened then divides them. it's important to note that c.b.o. has concluded that h.r. 2072 does not need an appropriation, has no budgetary impact because the $28 million
settlement funds were appropriated to the chippewa tribe in 1999. so they are already -- they've been there since 1999. i think it's high time that the settlement is finally distributed and put to work within the communities. the sooner we resolve these issues the sooner the funds can go to work in the economically depressed areas. there's a great need in these areas for schools, health care facilities and other improvements. i want to alert everybody that this is not annapolis. five of the six tribes support this. this has been going on for 13 years. but this is as good as we can do. it's not -- we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good and it's time we get this settleled -- settled. we think it makes no sense for anybody to draw draw hard line positions on this and judging from experience, no hard line
position has ever succeeded. it's time for everybody to come together, find an agreement that maybe not everyone loves but everyone can benefit from. that's what h.r. 1272 is. we encourage the adoption of the bill and our folks back home would appreciate getting this settled and letting these funds go to work on their legislation. -- on their reservation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. young: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, the author of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cravaack: i rise today in support of h.r. 1272, the minnesota chippewa tribe judgment fund distribution act of 2012, of which i'm an original co-sponsor. i represent five of the six bands that represent the chippewa tribe, a sovereign
entity and the sole plaintiff that gave rise to this legislation. the five bands in my district -- i've met with the representatives of all five bands on a number of occasions and they have all made it clear to me that it is more than pastime to bring resolution to this long standing issue. they entered into a $20 million legal settlement the united states government in 1999 to compensate for damages stemming from the improper taking of land under the nelson act of 1889. these funds have been sitting in a department of interior trust fund ever since and with interest have grown to about $28 million. this money now belongs to the minnesota chippewa tribe. the united states' only role in this has been to temporarily hold it in trust for them until it can be distributed. thus i join with my fellow minnesota representatives, mr.
peterson and mr. paulsen, in co-sponsthoring legislation before you today. this legislation puts forth a disbursement formula that reflects and honors the settlement determined democratcally by the tribal executive committee. this supports a per capita apportionment of $300 each to each member followed by a six-way split for the remaining settlement funds. importantly, h.r. 1272 will distribute the settlement funds according to the formula that's determined by the c.b.o., they have no budgetary impact. it is difficult to craft a compromise between such varied and competing interest bus the compromises in this bill represents the governing body that brought forth the claim from all six bands and the u.s. claims court recognizes that having the constitutional authority to enter into a proposed settlement on behalf of all six bands.
all six bands shared the risk of the case and all six were aloud an equal opportunity to vote on how the funds would be dist boughted -- distributed. the distribution will flow directly into the hands of the bands and their members, sparking much needed consumer ctivity and hopefully an investment in the lands in northern minnesota. h.r. 1272 is a solution that must be enacted to fulfill the u.s. government's legal obligations and release over $28 million in settlement funds in a fair and expeditious manner. i hope my leagues will join me in support of a bill that brings an end to this long standing distribute -- dispute. mr. lujan: if the gentleman has no further speakers, we're
prepared to yield back. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. young: i misspoke a moment ago, congressman collin peterson has been fighting this battling for years and years and i'm glad to see final he 4e succeeded. he's the prime sponsor of the legislation, along with mr. cravaack and mr. paulsen -- and mr. olson. you persevered and i urge passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1272 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2938 as
amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 307, h.r. 2938 a bill to pribt certain gaming activities on certain indian lands in arizona. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: i yield five minutes to the author of the bill, mr. franks of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairperson young and chairman hastings and the house leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today as well as the bipartisan group of co-sponsors for their support. h.r. 2938, the gila bend indian
reservation lands replacement act clarification act seeks to prevent gambling on lands. they have tried to manipulate the replacement act of 1986 to aquifere lands for gambling which are more than 100 miles from the existing reservation. this quote reservation shopping for casino gambling purposes is contrary to the promises they made to the other 16 tribes in arizona, the state and the voters of arizona when it openly and definitively supported passage of 202, to limit gambling in the phoenix area. they were in negotiations with other tribes to craft a gaming compact agreement, they were
simultaneously in the process of covertly purchasing attractive land in the phoenix metropolitan area for gambling purposes. thus they are trying to keep the -- thus we are trying to keep the tahoe ma odom nation to its public commitment not to engage in gambling in the phoenix metropolitan area. witnesses made it clear there's a problem and serious threat to existing gaming structures in arizona if the tahoe ma odom nation is -- tahoma odom nation. it will lead to off reservation casinos in other states across the country. to divide up land and ke claire it part of their sovereign
nation. even if the casino weren't in violation of federal law, which it is, but if it weren't, promises that it would create jobs and benefit the economy are woefully misinformed at best and shamefully dishonest at worst. the most frequently cited job creation numbers that have been thrown around in this debate come almost without exception from a study commissioned by the tahoe ma -- from the tahoma-odom tribe themselves. . multiple organizations asked the tribe to release the data and the methodology supporting this so-called study which was released roughly three years ago and to this day the tribe's continuously and steadfastly refused. in other words, the tribe's released a slough of numbers ex tolling the supposed amazing
economic benefits of their casino, then refused to tell anybody how they came up withed numbers. far from publicly benefiting the west valley, one recent well documented study found that casino operations would ultimately provide $172,500 annually for the city of glendale. the surrounding areas would not benefit from the sales, taxes and property taxes because the casino being on tribal land would be exempt from all three. meanwhile the glendale estimates and added cost of $3.6 million per year just for the additional cost of public safety services necessary to such a large operation. and of course it should always be remembered, mr. speaker, that casino revenues are primarily comprised of gambling losses that would have otherwise found their way into the economy in more productive sectors. mr. speaker, my bill would not seek to take any lands away from tohon oodham. my bill merely prevents them from building a gambling casino on certain lands as it previously agreed it would never do fment and i respectfully ask
my colleagues to join me and the members of arizona's delegation in supporting this bill and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new mexico. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, 10 minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, sir. let me thank my good friend, mr. lujan from new mexico, for his time. h.r. 2938 is named the gila bend indian reservation lands replacement clarification act. however do not be misled by this bill's benign sounding title. it does not aim to clarify anything. rather it seeks to unilaterally and gate an indian land claim and water rights settlement and it would also interfere with pending litigation in federal court. in 1986 the united states
enacted federal legislation specific to this tribe and this situation. the gila bend indian reservation lands replacement act, public law 99503, to implement a settlement reached between the united states and the nation. in this settlement the nation released claims against the united states for flooding and loss of its land as well as water rights of 36,000 acre feet per year. in exchange for releasing the claims, congress guaranteed via statute that the nation could obtain replacement reservations lands within three counties without restriction as to the use of that land. h.r. 2938 seeks to reneg on congress' solemn promise and change the maternal terms of the
settlement. this while congress contemplates in a very real way breaking its word to indian country one more time. the legislation will reopen and change the terms of a 1986 bipartisan land settlement authored by congressman mo yudo and then congressman john mccain, and then senator cue sinny and senator gold water. that compensated that the nation for 10,000 acres of land destroyed by the army corps of engineers in the 1950's. by violating an existing settlement, this legislation will create new liabilities for the federal government as taxpayers will have to provide more compensation to the nation as a result of prohibiting the purchase of replacement lands as provided in the original settlement act. enactment of this legislation would also set a dangerous precedent in which congress could unilaterally alter the terms of the federal settlement years later. if this is the case that would stop congress from revisiting any settlements over the years, then all settlements are open for review. h.r. 2938 is a job-killing special-interest legislation. the primary and kates of the legislation are wealthy gaming entities, tribal entities trying to protect the monopoly on a gaming market. if they get their way they will
prevent the nation from creating thousands of new jobs, permanent and construction. it renegs on the united states' promise to replace the reservation loss. and it vastly diminishes the nation's settlement by imposing new restrictions oned land replacement provided for in the 1986 settlement. it creates new liabilities for the united states. if this were to become law, 2938, it will breach the settlement act and it will leave the united states liable for untold millions of dollars in taking claims for the land and water rights that the nation relinquished under the settlement on the original settlement act and it undermines ongoing litigation. the same interests that support h.r. 2938 have brought various lawsuits to stop the nation from exercising its rights. but so far both state and federal courts have fully upheld the nation's rights. the proponents of h.r. 2938 want congress to change the law in
order to legislate the victory that they cannot get through litigation. in addition, misinformation, distortion and outright lies have been spread through congressional offices by a major lobbying firm in d.c. in the employment of the gaming entities opposed to the original law and promoting this law. this has nothing to do with reservation shopping. in no way would defeating this bill allow tribes to start buying up plots of land outside of, say, new york city, and open up casinos. the original act was specific only to the nation. the replacement land could only be purchased in one of three arizona counties. in fact, the land in question is the exact same account, maricopa, where the flooded land gila bend reservation was located. so i think it is time to stop this. this land is purchased legally by the nation, all in accordance
with the gila bend reservation and replacement act, to replace reservation land the u.s. government flooded and destroyed. to be used by the nation at their discretion for economic development. the innuendo of reservation shopping or the idea that its defeat will cause rampant reservation shopping is absurd and it needs to stop. i also want to address the idea that the compact guaranteed no new casinos in the area. the only casino that would exist in the phoenix areas are the ones that were in existence in 2003. but lo and behold the very tribes supporting this legislation have built two additional casinos since then. in fact, one of these tribes is about to break ground on a $135 million las vegas-style casino and hotel right odd outside of southwest phoenix -- right outside of southwest phoenix. let's stop the lies that the administration is neutral on this bill. they have testified against it, i have spoken to them. their positions haven't changed
and the administration does not support this legislation. this is a legislation that's costing disparate treatment of one tribe for the sake of protecting a market. the market should be competitive, this is not a violation of the arizona gaming compact and it is -- but it is an aberration of a law this congress passed in 1986 that is now being changed due to the whims of those afraid of a competitive market. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. gosar: mr. speaker, i rise in support of my friend, trent frank's legislation. 10 years ago stakeholders from across the state of arizona gather together to come up with a 21st century plan to manage
gaming activity. as part of that final agreement, many tribes agreed to forego building a casino to share in revenues as a whole. gaming revenues were set aside for education, health care and other measures to improve the lives of the average tribal members. the key part of the compact was a tribal agreement that no new additional casinos would be permitted in the phoenix metropolitan area. the tribe has since acquired land in glendale and has made it clear they intend to break their agreement and establish a casino on that land. this legislation ensures the tohono o'odham nation must keep the promise they made in 2002 to the other tribes, the state and our constituents. additionally, the small but vocal opposition to this legislation claims the bill before us seeks to unilaterally nullify an indian water rights
settlement. i assure my house colleagues that statement is false. water rights associated with the gila bend reservation were settled in the arizona water rights settlement act of 2004, not the gila bend act. the passage of h.r. 2938 would not affect the state's adjudication of water rights and it claims -- and its claims to water rights that the tohono o'odham might have claimed were also waived in the tribe's second water rights settlement, an act that provided for a complete and total waiver of all such water rights in exchange for substantial consideration in payments. last fall the department of interior testified on this bill and water rights were not mentioned. the committee resolved any concerns during the markup of that bill. today's debate is not about jobs or native american water rights, it is about protecting the integrity of arizona's gaming compact and preventing a dangerous precedent that could lead to the expansion of
off-reservation finances -- casinos in other states. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. markey: i thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from new mexico. h.r. 2938 should not have been brought to the house floor under suspension of the rules. this legislation doesn't name a post office or authorize a park study. h.r. 2938 instead is a highly controversial piece of legislation that will amend a settlement agreement between the united states and an indian tribe, impose restrictions on a tribe's authority to use its own land and circumvent years of federal and state court rulings.
during consideration by the natural resources committee, members from both sides of the aisle expressed concern about this measure. house members have heard from tribes across the country, arizona state legislators, local mayors, small business owners and community leaders on both sides of this aisle. the number of stakeholders with strong fieldings on -- feelings on both sides of this issue is plain evidence that the bill does not belong on suspension. so, we're here tonight, the implications for local, regional and national gaming industry precedents are quite significant. and we should -- we should only bring suspension-worthy bills out here on the floor and i say that because mr. grijalva, from arizona, whose tribal constituents are the sole target of this legislation, is being denied this opportunity and therefore any chance to address
his constituents' needs. and i think that since it does effect his district, his tribe, he's on the natural resources committee, he deserves it the right to be able to make amendments that can improve this legislation and he is not going to be allowed to do that. and so that is my view on this bill, that it's under the wrong process. suspensions are really meant for bills that do not bring the level of complexity, the level of controversy that a bill like this brings to the house floor and as a result i urge a no vote. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. young: i have one more speaker.
mr. lujan: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, stated the facts clearly. the u.s. 0's, government two -- the u.s. government seized lands that belong to the tohono o'odham tribe. the tribe has acquired a parcel meeting all the requirements under the law and asserted its rightful claim under that law. this bill retroactively and fundamentally alters that settlement, breaking the promises they relied on as they spent many years and millions of dollars acquiring the parcel and planning the project. why in the world would we want to do such a thing? it's obvious. like many tribe the tohono o'odham want to build a casino on this land.
this casino would compete with another tribe's casino in the region and that tribe doesn't want the competition. competition is so a-- anoying and inconvenient. -- annoying and inconvenient. it requires offering your customers better service at a better price. tohono o'odham wants to do that but the other tribe doesn't system of they created a front made up of anti-gambling pressure groups to try to stop them. they have been defeated in the courts at every turn. so what to do? what to do? they don't want to compete for customers they don't have a leg to stand on in court, what is left? of course, get congress to break its promise, which is why we're all here tonight. let's be very clear about what passing this bill would mean. many in this house have rightly criticized the president for killing thousands of jobs to
satisfy his ideological commitment, or opposition, rather -- rather to the keystone pipeline this bill does exactly the same thing. it kills 6,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent, ongoing service jobs by blocking this project on ideological grounds but the damage only begins there. federal taxpayers will become liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of economic damages to compensate the tohono o'odham for lost profits, for the devaluation of their property and for years of planning suddenly rendered worthless by this act. so what's the balance sheet here. on the plus side, we satisfy the ideological itch of anti-gaming busybodies and anti-growth se will thes and we protect a fwambling monopoly in phoenix from competition. on the minus side, we destroy 6,000 construction jobs, 3,000 service jobs and we open our constituents to hundreds of millions of dollars of damages
that we are certain to lose in court. i suggest that this bill ought to be laughed off the floor but there's nothing in it to laugh about. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: at this time, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: i come to this with a unique view because i was actually there 19 years ago as the majority whip in the arizona state house when this was originally being negotiated. i sat in the room hour after hour after hour for months with many of these native american communities and these very discussions about what would happen in this type of scenario and the assurances that were given to those of us in the
legislateture, who are having to make this decision, that this would never happen and i've listened to a little bit of the testimony, even from my good friend here from california and the facts don't line up. first off, in the gaming agreement, in the compact, there's the language about the distance from the base aboriginal territory and how far things could move away from that. this is outside that. the jobs numbers are a fantasy for the construction and i think mr. franks went over that in his discussion earlier. but why do i stand here so passionately supporting trent's bill? if this happens, it's going to destroy the nature of my state because understand, the compacts go ka boom, that the cascade begins and this isn't just for arizona. it would be all over the country.
i promise you, in a few years, you'll wake up and my state will be a statewide gaming state and then when this becomes precedent, understand all your states are now in play. this is more than just us being -- having a dispute with the tohono o'odham. that isn't what this is about. this is about keeping the promises that were made for many of us who were embattled in building these compacts years ago. let's have everyone keep their promise and let's keep the deal we made. with that, i yield back. mr. young: will the gentleman -- >> will the gentleman yields for a moment? does the tribe in question have a casino on their own property? >> yes, i think they have multiple casinos. i think there's actually one, two, three, four, five casinos
in the urban area by, i think, three different native american communities. this isn't about defending one, you know, tribe versus another. this is about, there's 1 tribes in arizona and the agreements that have been put together, heaven forbid what you're going to do to the communities, particularly the rural ones that get some of the sharing if we blow up the compacts through my state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has edges pyred. the gentleman yields back. mr. young: does the gentleman have more speakers? mr. lujan: i do. mr. young: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. hue -- mr. lujan: i yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: just, i think, important points to clarify, one is that the -- the nation's
proposed gaming facility in this land that was authorized by congress would violate prop 202. the department of entireor has spoken clearly on this issue and con firled in section 346 j of the tribal state gaming compact clearly allows the nation to develop a gaming facility on this land. nothing in proposition 202 would disallow the nation from fwaming in the phoenix metropolitan area as the other five to six casinos show. there was a gentleman's agreement for no more casinos in phoenix. there was no such deal. it's a rationalization for an ideal not supported by the letter of the law, the compact and all gaming must be approved
by the compact and by the department of interior. we have to look at what has not been said. the united states breach, this becomes law, will void the nation's release of its original land claim and open the united states to a liability that was valued at $100 million in 1986 dollars. the breach will also open the portion of the nation's original water plains settlement. this settlement is key to the negotiations going on now with salt river projects, the central arizona water conservation district the state of arizona, the maricopa stanfield district and the central arizona irrigation districts. all affecting a very precious commodity in arizona which is water. so at the expense of those liabilities, and that breach -- that wreach could cost not only the state of arizona but the united states taxpayer millions and millions of dollars and
loss and settlements that are so vitally needed around the water issues affecting arizona and the west. with that, let me thank the chairman and mr. lujan and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i can say that this is intha difficult for me because i have a rule about laws that are being passed in members' districts and i usually support mr. franks, who represents that district. i will say, mr. grijalva mentioned statements that i would suggest that congress makes laws and congress can remake laws. lawsuits is a scare tactic. they can sue all they want. one of the problems in america today, we have too many lawyers, you can see anybody, anything, any time, anywhere. this is battle about a state and a large group of american
natives that reached an agreement. said this -- gosar very clearly. he was there. they reached an agreement. we -- they can cite all the arguments they want but they have to understand when a state is involved under the native ming laws, which i and moe udall sponsored, the state has to be directly involved otherwise we wouldn't have gambling any place in arizona. the state would not have agreed to that if there hadn't been an agreement that there would be no more than wasest tablied in the compact. i think we have to consider the state's belief in this. that does affect the state. probably wouldn't have any gambling at all. this money from those existing five casinos is shared even by the tribes requesting this casino outside their territory where they have their own casinos, they want it in the phoenix area. we all know that.
this is about money, there's no doubt about that. but what concerns me most is the compact. when i listen to this, when you make an agreement and you're a tribe and you agree to something, don't try to go around and try to change that later on by asking some lawyers, we talk about finances, where the finances are coming from, we can find that out too later on. so i yield back the balance of my time with the understanding, this is an arizona battle but as chairman i have to listen to both sides and right now, i come down on the side that arizona, the state of, has an agreement and we ought to live by it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2938 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. hue lan: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. lujan: i request the -- mr. grijalva: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. grive of arkansas for today -- for mr. griffin of arkansas for today and mr. schilling of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?
>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, the crisis in syria is getting worse and worse and worse. i join with the united nations, but i ask that the arab league and nato raise their voices to remove women and children and elderly and the disabled and the sick from this onslaught of violence. i ask the head of russia, mr. putin, does he have a heart? is he going to continue on the basis of ego and collaboration determine that he allows the violence against the syrian people to continue? i ask my christian friends in syria as well to join with the world of humanity to stop the violence against women and children. it is time now. mr. speaker, i change to another topic very quickly and say that one vote, one person.
the voter i.d. law doesn't allow that and the massive infusion of dollars coming from places no one knows, no one has the account for, let us have the constitution stand again, let america have a 2012 election without the infusion of unnamed dollars, now $100 million may be coming into this election from one person, mr. speaker the constitution deserve respect, one vote, one person. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i won't take the entire hour. but this is a 10-year journey that i have been on since i was notified by the wife of one of the pilots, connie gruber who lives in my district, that the plain crash very tragically on
april , 2000, where 19 marines were killed in a v-22 osprey, that her husband, major brooks gruber, and colonel john brow, pilot, were being blamed for an accident. 19 marines that night were killed and again 10 years ago i was contacted by mrs. gruber who lives in jacksonville, north carolina, which is the home of camp lejeune marine base. mr. speaker, i have for the house a photograph of the v-22 osprey that many people might have forgotten. in the year 2000 it was a plain going through a lot of trouble, meaning from the standpoint of testing, standpoint of records being changed, and standpoint of secretary of defense at the time , dick cheney, wanted to scrap the program.
but the marine corps was saying that they had to have the mv-22 and again, mr. speaker, for you to know, this is the plain that goes from a helicopter -- plane that goes from a helicopter mode to an airplane mode. the sails would go from this way to a plane mode. and i have this get side me so the people can see the v-22. the pilot was colonel john brow, he's immediately on my left. and the co-pilot to his left or the poster's left was major brooks gruber. con >> gruber wrote me a -- connie gruber wrote me a letter, it's a full major, mr. speaker, and i'd just like to read what she said, just one paragraph. with so many wrongs in the world, we cannot make right, i
ask you to consider an injustice you can make right. i realize you alone may not be able to amend the support but i can support my efforts to remove this blight mark from my husband's honorable military service record. mr. speaker, it was at a time an issue involving the v-22 that the marine corps did not recognize nor did bill boeing, the manufacturer of the plane, it was called vortex ring state, v.r.s., and where it's where the different, the two helicopter sails can be impacted in a different way. and that's why it -- what caused this tragic accident. on april 8, 2000. mr. speaker, right after the accident the marine corps sent three investigators, colonel mike morgan, colonel ron radish
and major phil stackhouse, to arizona to investigate this accident. which was very, very difficult for the marines who were given the responsibility to find out you why this plane crashed and burned. mr. speaker, they came back and completed what was known as the jagman report that was submitted to the marine corps. the investigators, this was their findings of what caused the accident. this is what has created the problem, is that the marine corps issued a press release that i will talk about in just a few minutes and the jagman the families agree with. everything in the jagman they agree with and i'll touch on that in just a moment. i also at this time want to thank congressman steny hoyer from maryland, who is the
congressman of the wife of the pilot, trish brow, she has two sons. mr. hoyer has joined me in clearing the name of these two titles -- two pilots and i want to thank him for that. in addition, congressman norm dicks from the state of washington who will be leaving this year, has heard me speak on the floor about this accident and he also wants to join in clearing the names of these two pilots. mr. speaker, i also want to thank attorney jim furman in texas. attorney jim furman represented connie gruber and trish brow in the lawsuit against bill boeing. in addition, brian alexander and his society, frances young, were the attorneys for the 17 marine families. so those two attorneys, jim furman and brian alexander, have
joined any in -- me in clearing the names of john brow and brooks gruber and, mr. speaker, i must state that they won their case against bill boeing. the amount of money allotted to the families has been secured so therefore no one knows except the families. but it tells me a whole lot when a manufacturing company decides that they would rather settle out of court than take the case to court. the assistant secretary of defense and director of operational tests and evaluation in the department of defense at the time of this accident has also joined us in clearing the names of the two pilots. also shortly after the accident in the year 2002, c.b.s. -- cbs "60 minutes" led by mike wallace who is now deceased gave the story of what happened and why this plane crashed and why the
two pilots should not be seen at fault. mr. speaker, there have been many people in this 10-year journey from local press in eastern north carolina, all the way to press in texas, have joined us in this effort to say to connie and trish brow and their sons and their daughter, your husband's not at fault -- your husbands were not at fault. while the marine corps will not join in this effort i do not understand. all the marine corps has to do is to issue a paragraph that clearly states to trish brow that your husband, john brow, colonel john brow, pilot, was not at fault for the accident that occurred on april 8 of 2000 in arizona. all the marine corps has to do is to write a paragraph on the commandant stationary to connie
gruber stating the same thing except, your husband, major brooks gruber, co-pilot, was not at all the for the accident that happened -- at fault for the accident that happened on april 8 of it 2000 in arizona. -- of 2000 in arizona. mr. speaker, you might think, and maybe some people watching tonight might think, well, why is this so difficult? the lawsuits are over, the plane is surviving, there's no threat to the marine corps that they're going to eliminate the v-22, it's part of their arsenal now, but this is what happened. a marine corps press release, july 27 of the year 2000, states, and i quote for the record, unfortunately the pilots' drive to accomplish that mission appears to have been the fatal factor. mr. speaker, the official jagman
investigation that i made reference to, colonel morgan, colonel radish and major stackhouse, this is what they said in the jagman. during this investigation we found nothing that we would care to -- characterize as negligence, deliberate pilot error or maintenance/material failure. mr. speaker, if the marine corps after the jagman report came out would have released a press statement that would have said, after we have reviewed this jagman report, it is now our determination because of the jagman report that colonel john brow and major brooks grube were not at fault -- gruber were not at fault for this accident. mr. speaker, at the time of this accident this issue of vortex ring state was not fully
understood. it was understood in the world of the helicopters, but not in the world of the v-22 osprey. the marine corps did not understand nor did the bill boeing understand how the vortex ring state, how these pilots could have reacted. mr. speaker, in fact, at the time of the accident the manual that was given to the pilots of the v-22 and given to colonel john brow and major brooks gruber, the manual had absolutely nothing about the vortex ring state. it had one sentence. since that time the manual for
the marine corps and the navy and the air force, mr. speaker, is six pages about vortex ring state and how you react to vortex ring state. mr. speaker, there are warning systems in the cockpit of the v-22 now that these two marines never saw, never had, never understood, never knew about. but since that accident, mr. speaker, they now have a warning system that tells the pilots that you're in trouble, you're in trouble and they even have in the helmets they carry, they wear, a voice of a woman said, sink, sink, sink, meaning, you have to react to the sinking of the ship. this plane. mr. speaker, that's why tonight and once a month i'm coming down on the floor to talk about the fact that these marines have every right to rest in peace,
one's buried in arlington cemetery, that's colonel john brow, and the other, major brooks gruber, is buried in the veterans cemetery down in jacksonville, north carolina, where his wife lives. mr. speaker, i also want to thank wtbd in durham. they're bringing a film crew up tomorrow to interview trish brow and one of her sons. they will meet mrs. brow over at arlington cemetery and this is why it does not make any sense why the marine corps will not issue a public statement and a paragraph to the two wives saying, after this many years and all the facts and all the testing and everything that we've done, there's no way that your husbands could have known what they were doing. mr. speaker, they were sitting in the air, they did not
understand how to react to vortex ring state. the marine did not explain to them how to react. and bill boeing had not done the proper research. mr. speaker, when i say proper research, after this accident and an additional accident, tom mcdonald, a test pilot, spent 700 hours trying to figure out how the v-22 responds to vortex ring state and how the pilot should respond to for vex tings rate -- ring -- vortex ring state. in fact, mr. mcdonald deserved and he earned from the test pilots association the kinsler award for finding out and figuring out what you do when a plane gets into vortex ring state. mr. speaker, these two men would not have given their life and 17
marines in the back of the plane if bill boeing had done his job and the marine corps had demanded that bill boeing understand vortex ring state and how it would impact the v-22. mr. speaker, very quickly i'm going to close in just a few nutes, but i wanted to share with the record that when the jagman said that this was not deliberate pilot error, i wrote to one of the investigators, lieutenant colonel morgan, and i asked him, how and why did you use the word deliberate pilot error in the jagman report? and again the families -- we accept the jagman report. but i did not quite understand. i'm not a pilot, not a marine. never served. but i wanted to understand why